Why Do People Still Text
-
@Dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
This makes a huge assumption that someone is basically sitting on their email all day every day. I'd say most people are more likely to be sitting on their phone all day every day than their email (you being the obvious exception). I have notifications for emails/non SMS chats disabled on my phone. The stupid device would never shutup otherwise, and basically would simply become white noise that would be ignored. And while SMS has all the failings you've mentioned - the ringing phone is the one most likely to get my attention the quickest. Email would only match that if I was in my email at the time the message arrived.
If all those emails would be SMSs instead, then you'd have that silent as well and never know it... but double never know it due to how unreliable SMS is, and you'd never know.
-
@Obsolesce said in Why Do People Still Text:
@Dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
This makes a huge assumption that someone is basically sitting on their email all day every day. I'd say most people are more likely to be sitting on their phone all day every day than their email (you being the obvious exception). I have notifications for emails/non SMS chats disabled on my phone. The stupid device would never shutup otherwise, and basically would simply become white noise that would be ignored. And while SMS has all the failings you've mentioned - the ringing phone is the one most likely to get my attention the quickest. Email would only match that if I was in my email at the time the message arrived.
If all those emails would be SMSs instead, then you'd have that silent as well and never know it... but double never know it due to how unreliable SMS is, and you'd never know.
I completely agree - I don't think anyone is defending SMS here.
-
@Dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
This makes a huge assumption that someone is basically sitting on their email all day every day. I'd say most people are more likely to be sitting on their phone all day every day than their email (you being the obvious exception).
Given that for nearly all people, both go to the same device, but one is far more likely to get through (email keeps trying, phone gets one shot), and essentially anyone that wants to be reached can do so trivially - it is only those intentionally going dark that don't get their email there, that it's the opposite. Sure, you CAN disable anything you want, that you have to go out of your way to cut off contact kind of proves the point
With phones being mostly ignored today, partially because they are heavily used for spam, the idea that people listen for them and react to them has gone away. Heck just watch @pchiodo he's a boomer and he still sees his phone ringing as something to completely ignore. He may or may not bother to look at it when it is ringing.
-
Why is this still a topic. . .
-
@Dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
All that said - in a delayed notification situation, I completely agree that email is likely best - though chat clients that tell the sender that a message has been read is something I like a lot more than relying on email read relies, which most people disable (just stating a personal appreciation of that tech)
It's the emergency to think about. When you HAVE to get a message to someone... knowing that they read it, hearing their voice... these are less critical concerns. What matters most in an emergency is maximizing the chance that the information will arrive. Email has the most reliably delivery, going to more devices, people, places and overcoming more technical obstacles than any other mechanism. It doesn't trust that one person or one device or one moment in time is the right one. That's what makes it so powerful, combined with being able to deliver concise information quickly. It also overcomes the majority of issues for people with disabilities. The deaf, for example, can't use a telephone for emergencies, it is too slow and often doesn't work.
Using a phone call to tell someone to check their email, sure. When we have emergencies at work, we always stop until we get it in writing. Any phone call first would simply tell us that it's not really that important. A phone call to verify that we are seeing the email that was already sent, sure. But calling to tell us what we need to have written down is just wasting time.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Why Do People Still Text:
Why is this still a topic. . .
Because people still aren't thinking about how messages are actually delivered and made available.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
Because people still aren't thinking about how messages are actually delivered and made available.
Qualifying @Dashrender as someone who thinks about how messages are delivered is a stretch. . . He appreciates modern approaches to modern messaging solutions (like iMessage, which isn't truly SMS).
Read receipts from email are dumb and worthless. Texting is also generally worthless as I've sent SMS that say "delivered" and the recipient never got them, or I never get their message.
Email communication is at least reliable from the try-again and error reporting functionality, but it's not a barn-burner type of communication method other than as you stated as an MSP you need things in writing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
Heck just watch @pchiodo he's a boomer and he still sees his phone ringing as something to completely ignore. He may or may not bother to look at it when it is ringing.
Well, if that truly has become the norm, then I guess their is no near instantaneous way to get a hold of someone.
Though I guess calling and SMS'ing would be in the same boat there, only with calling, you do KNOW if the other party answers that they got the message right then.. if they don't answer - well, then it's the same as a missed/missing/ignored SMS.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
@Dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
All that said - in a delayed notification situation, I completely agree that email is likely best - though chat clients that tell the sender that a message has been read is something I like a lot more than relying on email read relies, which most people disable (just stating a personal appreciation of that tech)
It's the emergency to think about. When you HAVE to get a message to someone... knowing that they read it, hearing their voice... these are less critical concerns. What matters most in an emergency is maximizing the chance that the information will arrive. Email has the most reliably delivery, going to more devices, people, places and overcoming more technical obstacles than any other mechanism. It doesn't trust that one person or one device or one moment in time is the right one. That's what makes it so powerful, combined with being able to deliver concise information quickly. It also overcomes the majority of issues for people with disabilities. The deaf, for example, can't use a telephone for emergencies, it is too slow and often doesn't work.
Using a phone call to tell someone to check their email, sure. When we have emergencies at work, we always stop until we get it in writing. Any phone call first would simply tell us that it's not really that important. A phone call to verify that we are seeing the email that was already sent, sure. But calling to tell us what we need to have written down is just wasting time.
I'm not undercutting the value of email at all - but I know many would disagree that calling when the system is emergent was a waste of time. If you're at a ER check in desk and you need to get a doctor up front ASAP, you're calling his ass - or paging/SMS - calling in this case would be MUCH better because you know if they answer they are coming (or not) - with paging - you have no clue what their situation is - and no bloody way in hell is any desk staff going to sit down and type up an email to that doc and press send hoping they will get their ass there ASAP.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
@Dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
All that said - in a delayed notification situation, I completely agree that email is likely best - though chat clients that tell the sender that a message has been read is something I like a lot more than relying on email read relies, which most people disable (just stating a personal appreciation of that tech)
It's the emergency to think about. When you HAVE to get a message to someone... knowing that they read it, hearing their voice... these are less critical concerns. What matters most in an emergency is maximizing the chance that the information will arrive. Email has the most reliably delivery, going to more devices, people, places and overcoming more technical obstacles than any other mechanism. It doesn't trust that one person or one device or one moment in time is the right one. That's what makes it so powerful, combined with being able to deliver concise information quickly. It also overcomes the majority of issues for people with disabilities. The deaf, for example, can't use a telephone for emergencies, it is too slow and often doesn't work.
Using a phone call to tell someone to check their email, sure. When we have emergencies at work, we always stop until we get it in writing. Any phone call first would simply tell us that it's not really that important. A phone call to verify that we are seeing the email that was already sent, sure. But calling to tell us what we need to have written down is just wasting time.
Now, in your case as being a MSP, and hell, for the CYA of any IT person - I can see your point in saying that nothing should be accomplished without that CYA email, but seriously - typing up an email with all the details might take several mins - a phone call can convey the notion that the ABC that is critical is down - get working on it... and assuming you answer the call, they know you know, and you can start working on it... but if they email you - they have to wait for you to get that email, that could be now, that could be 3 hours from now when you next check your email.
Now, again, in your MSP - you likely have staff who's job it is to sit on that email queue for x-y hours, so you're less likely to have an email go mins, let alone hours without being seen.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Why Do People Still Text:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
Because people still aren't thinking about how messages are actually delivered and made available.
Qualifying @Dashrender as someone who thinks about how messages are delivered is a stretch. . . He appreciates modern approaches to modern messaging solutions (like iMessage, which isn't truly SMS).
Read receipts from email are dumb and worthless. Texting is also generally worthless as I've sent SMS that say "delivered" and the recipient never got them, or I never get their message.
Email communication is at least reliable from the try-again and error reporting functionality, but it's not a barn-burner type of communication method other than as you stated as an MSP you need things in writing.
Precisely
-
City texts at 5:30 that there is a tornado emergency and you should shelter in place till 6:45. Message arrives at 6:32. Real useful warning system.
-
When I receive an Amber Alert on my iPhone is that a SMS?
-
@black3dynamite I'm not sure, but I would guess so. What I know is that the SMS for these gets copied to my desktop so I see them happen there, too. That's how I know that the weather ones are SMS.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
City texts at 5:30 that there is a tornado emergency and you should shelter in place till 6:45. Message arrives at 6:32. Real useful warning system.
We'll it's not like the city has everyone's email address, and if they did, not like everyone would see or be alerted of the email. The best way is via a phone feature all phones have that can alarm and alert, outside of sms.
-
@Obsolesce said in Why Do People Still Text:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
City texts at 5:30 that there is a tornado emergency and you should shelter in place till 6:45. Message arrives at 6:32. Real useful warning system.
We'll it's not like the city has everyone's email address, and if they did, not like everyone would see or be alerted of the email. The best way is via a phone feature all phones have that can alarm and alert, outside of sms.
SMS signals are more likely to be assured than a phone call I'm guessing. As far as I know, the cell company keeps trying for at least a while to get SMS messages through until an unknown timer expires or the mobile confirms receipt.
-
@Dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
@Obsolesce said in Why Do People Still Text:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
City texts at 5:30 that there is a tornado emergency and you should shelter in place till 6:45. Message arrives at 6:32. Real useful warning system.
We'll it's not like the city has everyone's email address, and if they did, not like everyone would see or be alerted of the email. The best way is via a phone feature all phones have that can alarm and alert, outside of sms.
SMS signals are more likely to be assured than a phone call I'm guessing. As far as I know, the cell company keeps trying for at least a while to get SMS messages through until an unknown timer expires or the mobile confirms receipt.
I never mentioned phone calls...
-
After a week of solid Internet but almost no working texting, I'm reminded of this topic. Telegram, Signal, What'sapp, Cliq, Slack, email all have worked but texting has not.
-
-
